From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1EQ8gq-0005n8-6f for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:24:32 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id j9DJDFiS010127; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:13:15 GMT Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [134.68.220.30]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id j9DJAN3T010130 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:10:23 GMT Received: from bmb24.med.uth.tmc.edu ([129.106.207.24] helo=localhost) by smtp.gentoo.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.43) id 1EQ8ch-00010s-WE for gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2005 19:20:16 +0000 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:20:16 -0500 From: Grant Goodyear To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Scratching of GLEP22 Message-ID: <20051013192016.GD22021@bmb24.uth.tmc.edu> Mail-Followup-To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org References: <200510070003.56151@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> <1128687911.8881.22.camel@cgianelloni.nuvox.net> <200510132037.47330@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Qbvjkv9qwOGw/5Fx" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200510132037.47330@enterprise.flameeyes.is-a-geek.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 X-Archives-Salt: 834981b9-2ff1-4a1e-9e49-42edc2ccac05 X-Archives-Hash: ff4984af41e670fa88eabf57aebc560d --Qbvjkv9qwOGw/5Fx Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten=F2 wrote: [Thu Oct 13 2005, 01:37:32PM CDT] > Problem is that this would mean replace it with another GLEP then.... > because it changes basically everything. I would rather it be replaced by another GLEP, personally. Just yanking it isn't sufficient, since it doesn't solve the problem of what to call the profile for a freebsd-based system that uses a gnu userland on x86. Or is the claim that no such name would be needed? The original e-mail suggesting yanking the GLEP wasn't really sufficiently for me to understand exactly how the replacement would work. > Also because right now we're not following that scheme anyway right now... Which is fine, of course, since nothing is in the tree yet, but there will be real complaints if this stuff makes it into the tree w/o following that GLEP (or a new GLEP if it's approved). -g2boojum- --=20 Grant Goodyear=09 Gentoo Developer g2boojum@gentoo.org http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0 9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76 --Qbvjkv9qwOGw/5Fx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDTrNwptxxUuD2W3YRAtdjAJ9vHAvFUdFGVbYjkDlBO2ie+rpDxQCfUpyA E7GzgUmpYLSIN90SBmCPjxk= =siyr -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Qbvjkv9qwOGw/5Fx-- -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list